Category talk:Pages where template include size is exceeded
How to get around it BDM subpages Thurstan fixed one of these; it was Middlesex County, Massachusetts/bdm - which is big, containing over 500 births alone. See Forum:Bdm templates. He used "subst:", which has the practical effect of replacing the template with the current contents of the template page; slight disadvantage being that if we improve the template we don't see any change in that page. :The latest version of the template is all broken up between subpages, so that now you don't lose the updates if you use "subst:". Thurstan (talk) 19:55, February 26, 2019 (UTC) Other types of page Thurstan knows his way around, but those of us who aren't so proficient would like some guide to what we may be able to do if faced with a page that should have quite a lot of content but has only a link to a template. Is there a general rule or may each such page need its own unique solution? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 09:48, September 30, 2015 (UTC) I came across it again when looking at the examples on . London/bdm is no longer a good example to lead people to. How can we improve things?---- Robin Patterson (Talk) 05:52, April 27, 2018 (UTC) Worsening? I have just received an email that said: ---- :Hi Robin Patterson, :London has been added to Pages where template include size is exceeded on Familypedia. :A FANDOM user ..... ---- I see London in the category. Curiously, its history shows no changes in the last 18 months. Maybe that is a cached history, which will soon be updated. Anyway, it seems the article is correctly placed there, because down at the bottom we see Template:Navbox where a navbox should probably be. This problem could get serious. Is there any way to enlarge the permissible "template include size"? Also curious is that London/bdm is no longer in the category. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 11:35, May 18, 2018 (UTC) :Sorry, I fixed London/bdm for you (by expanding the templates) before, which is why it is no longer in the category. Thurstan (talk) 11:55, May 18, 2018 (UTC) :I withdraw my first inaccurate comment: London is now in this category because a new template has been created which we didn't have before. The offending code is: }} }} }} }} }} :I think you will find that some of the template like have recently been created. Thurstan (talk) 20:14, May 18, 2018 (UTC) ::Thank you for that detailed response. I presume, therefore, that, if we can't get the template include size enlarged, when we see that a place page has been added to this category we can try to get it out again by deleting some templates that are of minimal genealogical interest? And for a bdm page we can do what you did to London/bdm]? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:42, May 21, 2018 (UTC) :::That about sums it up. Whether Central Wikia will increase the parameter for us, I do not know: you could ask them. :::Another line of attack for a page like London: Wikipedia seems to use the same limit as we do, and not blow the limit, so maybe their recoding of infoboxes, particularly using LUA, has reduced the include size. Thurstan (talk) 03:57, May 21, 2018 (UTC) /descendants There is no easy fix for the "/descendants" pages: perhaps we should introduce a parameter to reduce the number of generations shown. Or a variant template that can manually replace the standard one, showing one generation fewer? --- Robin Patterson (Talk) 11:06, February 26, 2019 (UTC) Breakup the BDM Template The BDM template is a powerful tool that makes this website so great for genealogy buffs. But maybe it is time to breakup the template into its separate elements - births / marriages / deaths / remains / etc. Our big pages will only keep getting bigger. I never change the page, but we sure keep adding lots of people who were born /died there, etc. Maybe you can further breakup the template by century? Examples of some overloaded BDM pages. * Provo, Utah/bdm * Middlesex County, Massachusetts/bdm * London/bdm * Boston/bdm I also have a few examples of some people (early New England settlers) with lots of descendants links: * John Lathrop (1584-1653)/descendants * John Alden (c1599-1687)/descendants * John Howland (1592-1672)/descendants